Funniest and best headline of the new year:
Laura Ingraham stupefied by Obama’s popularity: ‘In defeat… he’s setting the agenda’
“In defeat, Obama looks like he’s setting the agenda,” Ingraham complained during a panel discussion on Fox News Sunday. “I mean, his poll numbers are up. He’s got a bounce in his step… He is rising in the polls as he comes off this near-historic defeat across the board.”
Near-historic defeat? Yeah, right. Clueless tea-wingers don't understand anything, do they.
Other clueless wingnuttia:
Just 2 days away and the Real Americans take COMPLETE CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL
The Wall Street Journal:
Solid Economy Causes Small-Business Optimism to SurgeHalf of Owners, Executives Surveyed See Continued Improvement
What’s Behind Obama’s Improving Poll Numbers?
"Prices at the pump have plummeted in recent months, a phenomenon that will free up billions of dollars for people to spend next year. The lower prices amounted to a tax cut of $100 billion and $125 billion for the middle class, the Journal reported earlier this month. More than half of respondents to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll earlier this month said falling gas prices were having a positive impact on their families, and expectations that the economy would improve were at their highest point since mid-2013.
U.S. stocks rose to record highs last week. Investors say they are expecting further gains for stocks in 2015, citing the surprising rate of U.S. growth in the third quarter and forecasts for strong holiday-season sales. That is yet another factor contributing to Americans’ brightening outlook on the economy. And since his party received a thrashing in November’s midterm elections, Mr. Obama has kicked it up a notch, taking aggressive unilateral action that has cheered Democrats.
Since Election Day, the president has announced a climate deal with China, overhauled the nation’s immigration system, and moved to thaw America’s relationship with Cuba after decades of hostility. Those moves—all made without Congress—have stoked Republicans’ ire, but the new, proactive Mr. Obama is likely a welcome change for members of his own party."
AND THE FINAL LOL REALITY!:
18 comments:
Near-historic defeat? Yeah, right. Clueless tea-wingers don't understand anything, do they.
A "near-historic defeat" of Congressional Democrats who largely distanced themselves from Obama while campaigning -- not of Obama himself, who, whether they like it or not, was not on the ballot and is still President for another two years.
It's hardly surprising that Obama is able to out-maneuver a Republican caucus increasingly made up of gibbering lunatics and laced with morons.
Thanks Obama!
Faux Snooze isn't covering the Sacalise scandal?
They still on Benghazi?
Have you heard that His Derpness, Louie Gohmert, is hankering to be the Speaker of the House? And I thought Christmas was over and Santa gave out all his presents. Have I been so good that he'll leave one more under the tree?
Ducky said: "[Fox News] isn't covering the Sacalise scandal?"
No idea, as I don't follow them. Let's go check... 228 stories? Guess they are.
Right.
But how does FAUX NOOZ handle the reporting on the Scalise controversy?
They report it like this.
Or like this where Charles Krauthammer compares Rev. Wright's incendiary remarks to the murderous KKK:
"Krauthammer criticized the fact that Scalise is being held accountable 'for a single event 12 years ago,' but the President spent over two decades at Rev. Wright’s church and the liberal media gave him a pass. He added that he didn’t 'even think it’s comparable.'
Of course Krauthammer doesn't "even think it's comparable." He's a biased FAUX NOOZ hack.
But I can see the difference.
The KKK was a terrorist organization dedicated to torturing and murdering Americans whose skin was not white. And they tortured and killed with impunity up until the 1960s.
Rev. Wright used the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to condemn America for what he perceived as wrongs against African-Americans. No one was tortured or murdered because of his 1st Amendment right to say what he wanted to say.
Rev. Wright paid the consequences for inveighing against this country. He's a pariah for speaking the way he did.
What consequences did members of the KKK pay for their decades of torture and murder?
Accepting a speaking invitation from a terrorist group is not the same thing as a man who expresses his outrage and anger at a country that allowed that terrorist group to flourish and commit murder for as long as it did.
Sorry about that.
The FAUX NOOZ link above is broken.
Try this.
Correction. The last lynching by the KKK is considered to have been carried out in the 1980s, not the 1960s, as I had thought:
In 1981, a trial of Josephus Anderson, an African American charged with the murder of a white policeman, took place in Mobile. While Anderson was convicted at a subsequent trial, this one ended without the jury reaching a verdict. The mistrial upset members of the United Klans of America who believed that the reason for the lack of decision was that some members of the jury were African Americans. At a meeting held after the mistrial, Bennie Hays, the second-highest-ranking official in the United Klans in Alabama, said: "If a black man can get away with killing a white man, we ought to be able to get away with killing a black man."
An inflammatory cartoon from the UKA's The Fiery Cross that was used as evidence in the civil trial resulting from Michael Donald's murder.
The same night other Klan members burnt a three-foot cross on the Mobile County courthouse lawn. Bennie Hays' son, Henry Hays (age 26), and James Llewellyn "Tiger" Knowles (age 17) drove around Mobile looking for a victim. Picked at random, they spotted Michael Donald walking home from getting his sister a pack of cigarettes. They kidnapped him, drove out to a secluded area in the woods, attacked him and beat him with a tree limb. They wrapped a rope around his neck, and pulled on it to strangle him, before slitting his throat and hanging him from a tree across the street from Hays' house."
Perhaps no coverage is better than coverage from a discredited partisan "more opinion than news" news channel like Fox or MSNBC...
Who is clueless?
The American people just gave Republicans an electoral landslide in the last election, after they have experienced 6 years of Obama (Democratic) policies.
Well, dmarks, just where we can go for responsible reporting is a problem isn't it?
Wouldn't it be swell if we could step back from all the fake coverage of the birth certificate, F&F, Benghazi, IRS, Ebola and the rest of the fake distractions?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Sunday news shows spent time reporting instead of trying to mask the dysfunction of the American right. A dysfunction that has,unfortunately, abandoned reportage to the dictates of corporate sponsors.
But if you want to comment on people gathering there news from a single discredited source you might have to accept that the tone set years back by Faux Snooze/Limbaugh has absolutely polluted the national dialogue.
Sandra said...
Who is clueless?
The American people just gave Republicans an electoral landslide in the last election, after they have experienced 6 years of Obama (Democratic) policies.
Sandra,
34% of eligible American voters gave the GOP Congress. It's a minority win.
BTW, everytime I read a right wing blog, their commenters complain about how stupid the American voters are, because Mr. Obama was elected twice. But those same American voters just gave the Senate to the GOP.
So how does that work?
It appears, by winger logic, that the new Congress was voted in by stupid Americans, n'est-ce pas?
Ducky: Valid points, but it applies to the left equally.
Fox News viewers less informed about current events than those who don’t watch news at all, study finds
Also. Water is wet!
Charlie Pierce:
"Laura Ingraham asks for another slice of pie, and she is puzzled. Thirty-eight percent of the country elected Republicans to be kings of the world and, yet, the Kenyan Usurper remains upright and taking nourishment.
"The Republicans shouldn't fall into the media trap of ‘We have to work with Obama! We have to work with Obama!'" she continued. "Obama is going off on his own. He's going to sign an executive order, he's going to close Gitmo, he's draining Gitmo down. Republicans have been successful and the economy has been improving with two things: gridlock and opposing Obama."
The economy has been getting better!"
The dictator is doing...things but gridlock works, dammit!
It's like watching someone try to swim in ankle weights."
LOL!
The wingers claim the American people are stupid for voting twice for Obama. And you call Americans stupid for voting for what you call wingers. That kind of childish charge just cancelled each other out.
We get the leadership we vote for, if Dem's didn't go out and vote, that says something. And here we are with Republican majority in both Houses. Your side lost, but you can't accept that so you call Republicans names. Very adult of you-NOT.
Sandra,
You misread my statement.
I wrote that if one applies wingnut logic (which claims the American people are stupid because they voted for Mr. Obama twice) to last November's elections, then American voters are stupid.
The wingnuts do not qualify their labeling of the American people as "stupid" only when they vote for Democrats, therefore, the American people must be stupid when they vote for any party. So they were stupid when they voted in the new GOP Congress.
So, your statements about what I wrote are incorrect.
Parse it all you want. I read liberal and conservative blogs, they both call each other idiots. I voted 3rd party and get called an idiot all the time. Those childish retorts solve nothing and is a big reason why we can't solve our problems. And solving our problems doesn't mean one side caves to another, it's called compromise. The issues aren't that hard; imagine compromising slavery to start a country. They (founders) all knew what that meant, but we had the documents signed, a new country, and a process and time to change our mistakes.
Post a Comment